Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

What is homoeopathy and how is it used in animals

Homoeopathy is an alternative method of treating illness, using so-called “remedies” that are extreme dilutions of substances which, in higher quantities, would cause the signs of illness being shown by the animal. The theory is that in some unknown way, the administration of these diluted substances stimulates the body’s immune system to counteract the signs of illness. The treatment method - treating “like with like” - has never been scientifically proven, despite claims by its proponents. The dilutions are so high that scientifically speaking, there is not even one molecule of the original substance left in the sugar pills that are are used to administer the diluted solution.

Critics of homoeopathy make two points. First, since there is not one molecule of the original substance left, how can it be possible for any physical effect to be exerted? And second, why there have been no scientific studies that demonstrate that homoeopathy has a consistent, measurable effect?

Despite this lack of evidence, some vets - and many pet owners - believe that homoeopathy can be effective, and it is regularly used to treat animals.

Earlier this year, the NHS banned homoeopathy, calling it a “misuse of scarce funds”, but humans are still allowed to go to homoeopaths to have themselves, or their children, treated with homoeopathy. Under UK law, only vets are allowed to treat animals, so if vets were banned from using homoeopathy, nobody would be allowed to use it to treat animals.

'Under UK law, only vets are allowed to treat animals, so if vets were banned from using homoeopathy, nobody would be allowed to use it to treat animals', says PeteCredit:
Patrick Bolger

Why is homoeopathic treatment of animals in the news?

The veterinary profession had been muttering about its unease with homoeopathy for some time: last year, a open letter, signed by over 3000 vets, asked the RCVS to blacklist homoeopathy from the treatments that vets are allowed to offer animals and their owners.

As the statutory regulator of vets and vet nurses, the RCVS has the power to do this.

"homoeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do."

If a hard line stance was taken against homoeopathy and other non-proven treatments, it’s likely that there would be a profusion of home-treatments going badly wrong

This new statement has been applauded by the vets campaigning against homoeopathy, even though it’s a long way from the “ban” that they’d called for.

Many pet owners want their vets to use homoeopathy, despite the lack of evidence for its efficacy

There are many anecdotal stories of pets being successfully treated with homoeopathy, although sceptics believe that these cases are easily explained by the placebo effect, regression to the mean and wishful thinking. It’s true that homoeopathic vets tend to spend longer talking to owners about their pets, extracting a highly detailed history, and it’s possible that this may also unearth useful facts about the cause of the pet’s malady, which in itself could bring benefits to the treatment of the case.

A vet who practises homoeopathy has responded to the RCVS statement with a letter in this week’s Vet Record: “ I do agree that diagnosis and treatment should be based on scientific principles, but veterinary surgeons should be given freedom of choice. If any veterinary surgeon neglects a patient by not providing suitable treatment, and so causes suffering, there are rules already in place for that. So long as complementary medicine is in the hands of a qualified veterinary surgeon there should be no risk to animal welfare.”

If vets aren’t allowed to use homoeopathy, owners will just use it on their own

A case in the courts this week supports this viewpoint: a woman who tried to treat her cat’s non-healing wound with manuka honey was found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to her pet. It turned out that the cat had advanced cancer. If a vet had been treating this cat - whether with manuka honey, homoeopathy or conventional treatments - they would have realised that the wound was, in fact, cancerous, and the cat would have been prevented from suffering. If a hard line stance was taken against homoeopathy and other non-proven treatments, it’s likely that there would be a profusion of home-treatments going badly wrong, as homoeopathy believers were forced to go their own way in the absence of vets to help them.

A woman who tried to treat her cat’s non-healing wound with manuka honey was recently found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to her petCredit:
Mediablitzimages / Alamy

A major cultural shift would be needed to stop homoeopathy being used

It isn’t surprising that homoeopathy has been widely tolerated, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence for its efficacy, nor any plausible theory for how its hyper-diluted “remedies” could have any effect.

Since the 1960s our post-modern culture has largely embraced the idea that reality is a social construct rather than an objective entity. Progressive liberal values are commonly associated with the idea that people’s beliefs should not be challenged whether or not they are grounded in truth. Indeed, it now seems to be accepted that you can justifiably feel offended if somebody disrespects your viewpoint, however whimsical.

This tolerance towards unproven beliefs is broadly bad for society. Many people have strong convictions about topics they know little or nothing about (for example climate change, vaccinations, pet nutrition, etc). They expect that their beliefs should be respected as much as those based on observable truths, simply because they value their own beliefs so highly.

This flight from reason should concern us all, but it is difficult to stop while living in a democracy. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to express opinions, and in many forums, strength of conviction seems to carry as much weight as scientific evidence.

Credit:
Tetra Images / Alamy

Those who wish homoeopathy to be banned would need the authority of a nationwide dictatorship to achieve their goal. And thankfully, this is still is a long way from the shores of the United Kingdom. Like it or not, homoeopathy is with us to stay for the foreseeable future.

Does homoeopathy genuinely cause harm to animals?

The RCVS are unable to report categorically that a vet has never had a complaint against them for causing a pet to be sick or die because homoeopathy has been used (they'd have to manually go through the details of every individual complaint to get this information, and that’s a task that is not easy to do). However I have no knowledge of any such cases, and as far as I know, there have been no high profile cases that have been widely reported. So despite media hyperbole, the risk to animal welfare seems to be more theoretical than real. Harm could only be caused if the vet treating the animal with homoeopathy persisted in treatments that were failing when it was clear that conventional treatment could relieve the animal’s suffering.

The Telegraph vet’s conclusion

Given that the RCVS ruling allows for the continued use of homoeopathy by vets, it seems to me that it should be seen as a positive step forwards. The statement acts as a stern reminder that vets need to take great care when using homoeopathy, and that if they do not take such care, they may be struck off for unprofessional conduct.

This achieves two goals: first, vets and animal owners with a penchant for homoeopathy can continue to indulge their wishes, and secondly, and most importantly, animals are protected so that they cannot suffer because of the fantastical whims of their carers.